IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

RSA No.275/2025

Date of Decision: 15th December, 2025.

Onkar Sharma and Anr. .....Appellants

Versus .

NHAI and Anr. …..Respondents

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

W hether approved for reporting?1

For the Appellants: Mr. Varun Rana, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Ms. Shrey a Chauhan, Advocate.

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral).

The appellant, by filing this appeal under section 100 of

the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 21.07.2025, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sunder Nagar , District Mandi, HP in Civil App eal No.46 of 2023, affirming the judgment and decree dated 03.06.2023, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, HP, in Civil Suit No.97

of 2019.

2. The facts in the present case are that the appellants were the plaintiffs before the learned trial Court and they instituted a suit for recovery of damages amounting to ₹25,00,000/- along with interest against the present respondents, who were defendants before the learned trial Court. The case of the appellants, in brief, was that they were the owners of land comprised in Khewat No.223, Khatouni No.236, Khasra No.928/391 and 392 kitas 2 measuring 00-10-

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES

01 bighas in equal shares, situated in Muhal Chamukha/41, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. This land was sPloped and adjacent to National Highway No.21. The respondents acquired a portion of this land, specifically Khasra No.928/391 measuring 00-06-01 bighas, for the construction and widening of the National Highway vide Award No.45/2013-14 dated

29.10.2013.

3. The appellants' case wats that their remaining land in Khasra No.392 was very fertile, suitable for mango orchards, and had high commercial value. During the period from May 2016 to October 2017, the respondents executed the widening work on the acquired land in a negligent and unscientific manner, employing heavy machinery and blasting operations without making proper arrangements to protect the adjacent gland of the appellants situated at a higher elevation.

Consequently, in September 2018, the appellants' remaining land slipped down onto the National Highway, developing huge breaches and becoming completely damaged and unfit for any use. The appellants claimed the market value of the damaged land was ₹25 lacs, which they sought as damages under the principle of strict liability and for the wrongful acts and omissions of the respondents. Despite a legal notice dated 19.03.2019, the respondents failed to pay, leading to the suit.

The respondents were proceeded against ex-parte.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial court:- P

1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to damages to the sum of ₹25,00,000/- as alleged?

(2) Relief.

5. After evidence and hearing, the trial court decided Issue No. 1 against the plaintiff, dismissing othe suit. Aggrieved by the trial court's judgment and decree, the appellants preferred a first appeal. In the first appeal, the appellants contended that the learned trial court had failed to appreciate the overwhelming evidence which proved the damage to their property was a direct result of the highway construction activities. It was argued that the principle of 'Strict Liability' was squarely applicab le to the facts of the case. The appellants further submitted that the quantum of damages was established by Ext.P-12, the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer, N.H.A.I. They asserted that the findings of the trial court were arbitrary, erroneous, and based on surmises, rendering the judgment unsustainable. The first appellate court, however, upon consideration, dismissed the appeal. It is against this dismissal of the first appeal that the appellants have now preferred the present second appeal.

6. Heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgements